JAMES O’NEILL. Scientific evidence exposes the falsity of US government claims about Syrian gas attack.

The irresistible conclusion is that those same senior politicians know that the White House claims are false and misleading and therefore highly dangerous to Australia’s national security. That they should maintain their silence on this while continuing to perpetuate a barrage of lies and half-truths about the ongoing Syrian tragedy raises serious questions about their fitness to govern.

On 4 April 2017 an incident occurred in the Syrian town of Khan Sheikhoun, as a result of which a number of civilians, including children, died. The western media and western politicians immediately branded the attack as an assault using chemical weapons by the Syrian government of Bashar al Assad. In what can only be described as a propaganda frenzy, the media and politicians condemned the Syrian President and his government.

That there was at the time very little evidence upon which to found these verbal and printed attacks was the least of the concerns of political leaders and their echo chambers in the media.

US President Trump made a number of barely coherent statements and claimed to be horrified at the deaths of civilians and children. Allegedly based upon these concerns, he ordered a missile attack on the Syrian air base at al Shayrat. A total of 59 cruise missiles were fired, of which only 23 hit their intended target. It seems likely that the balance of the missiles fired had their navigation systems electronically jammed by Russian defences and were diverted to fall harmlessly into the sea or open countryside.

Amidst the acres of newspaper space devoted to what was alleged to be a sarin attack and the American military response, the media were silent on both the illegality of the missile attack (apart from referencing the Russian government’s response) and the effectiveness of the Russian counter measures. The latter were achieved without the use of the effective S300 anti missile defences.

Further evidence has now emerged that throws into question the whole of the official narrative, and raises further serious questions about the integrity of the US government.

That evidence is contained in two reports issued by MIT scientist Professor Theodore Postol. Professor Postol is well known in US security circles, having issued influential reports on among other things the Israeli Iron Dome missile system and the 2013 Ghouta sarin attack. The latter incident is still falsely ascribed to the Syrian government by the Australian media, although the contrary evidence is now overwhelming.

Professor Postol analysed the official White House report on the Khan Sheikhoun attack. He further analysed other reports and claimed evidence upon which the White House report was allegedly based. This included forensic analysis and drawing on his own considerable experience in these matters.

In his first report, published on 11 April 2017, Professor Postol made a number of very important points. In the interests of clarity and brevity they will only be summarised here. The reader is urged to consult the original source for a fuller explanation. (1)

The main evidence relied upon by the US government in claiming an aerial attack in fact points to individuals on the ground as being responsible, not an aircraft.

The photographs of the alleged source of the sarin release were very likely tampered with or staged.

The most plausible conclusion is that the sarin was dispensed by an improvised dispersal device made from a 122mm section of a rocket tube filled with sarin and capped on both sides.

The crater was located in a search on google earth and there was absolutely no evidence that the crater was created by a munition dropped from an aircraft.

Analysis of the debris cited by the White House report clearly indicates that the munition was almost certainly placed on the ground with an external detonating explosive on it that crushed the container so as to disperse the alleged sarin.

The White House Report contains false and misleading conclusions.

Analysis of the weather patterns before and after the event show that the time and day of the attack was carefully chosen to ensure maximum effect and was no accident.

The errors in respect of the Ghouta attack in 2013 were proof that the intelligence had been fabricated and the same errors were repeated in the present report.

The highly amateurish nature of the mistakes indicate that the report was not properly vetted by the intelligence community as claimed.

All of these conclusions are reached on the basis of the data, which are also shown in Professor Postol’s report.

The fact that the White House would release what was manifestly a false, misleading and amateurish report is obviously a matter of serious concern. That concern is compounded by the fact that this false information was used to justify an illegal missile attack upon a sovereign nation. The escalation of tensions created by the Khan Sheikhoun incident and its aftermath have brought us inexorably closer to a full-scale war in the Middle East between two major nuclear powers. There is a sociopathic and psychopathic element in the US that sees such a war as desirable and winnable. Such insane attitudes only accentuate the risks.

Professor Postol also wrote an addendum to his report in the light of further analysis. The addendum reinforces his main original conclusions with the caveat that the chemical agent used was highly unlikely to have been sarin. The absence of proper protective clothing by workers on the scene (the highly dubious so-called White Helmets) means that if it were sarin that was dispersed they would either be suffering debilitating effects or be dead.

The claims by the White House (and other western politicians and media), cannot be sustained in the light of the actual evidence. These claims cannot simply be a mistake, but rather point to deliberate deception. Professor Postol finds this conclusion disturbing, because it means that the report was motivated not by serious intelligence, but rather was used to justify actions that were not supported by any legitimate intelligence.

Professor Postol’s two reports have received extensive coverage in the alternative media. A search of major mainstream media websites, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian, BBC, Fairfax Media, Newscorp and Australia’s ABC produced zero results for any reporting of Professor Postol’s conclusions.

This is almost as alarming as the false intelligence blaming the
Assad government and justifying a missile attack. It strongly suggests that the mainstream media are not interested in fairly and fully informing their readers of the actual evidence.

It defies belief that the Australian intelligence agencies are unaware of the shoddy and misleading “intelligence” contained in the White House report, and have not advised the relevant senior politicians accordingly. It would also be extremely surprising if those same intelligence agencies were unaware of Professor Postol’s report and its implications.

The irresistible conclusion is that those same senior politicians know that the White House claims are false and misleading and therefore highly dangerous to Australia’s national security. That they should maintain their silence on this while continuing to perpetuate a barrage of lies and half-truths about the ongoing Syrian tragedy raises serious questions about their fitness to govern.

9 Responses to JAMES O’NEILL. Scientific evidence exposes the falsity of US government claims about Syrian gas attack.

I would be rather less confident than James O’Neill that Australian politicians are aware that the White House claims are false and misleading. I’d probably go further, and suggest that it is unlikely that senior Australian politicians have received formal briefing on the deceitful nature of the four-page, undated, unsourced (not even an official logo) justification for the US cruise missile strike on Syria.

Plausible deniability is a much safer position for a politician in these circumstances. Even if such advice is prepared (and bureaucrats would want to do so to cover themselves), it may well languish in a ministerial minder’s in-tray to ensure plausible deniability until the issue blows over.

Remarkably, a small chink in the mainstream media’s blanket non-reporting on Syria opened with an article by Paul Malone in the Fairfax media (1). While he doesn’t pick up the Postol analyses by name, he expresses concern over the media’s lack of scepticism in reporting the latest attack, identifying several faults in the mainstream coverage of the attack and earlier reporting on Syria, and noting the similarity to lies promulgated from official sources prior to the 2003 Iraq invasion. Having such scepticism aired in the mainstream media makes it much more difficult to hide behind claims of plausible deniability.

Professor Postol has now released a further addendum to his report addressing the video evidence from Khan Sheikoun- also available at the unz.com website. It remains to be seen whether the US Administration will defend itself any further, or just keep its head down, hoping that the next crisis will take over the media within a day or two.

While we still don’t have a definitive account of the Khan Sheikoun attack, we are gaining a clearer picture of what it wasn’t – based on material provided by the jihadis themselves. Certainly, the confidence with which Ross Burns (2) and others attributed the attack to the Syrian Government is looking decidedly unfounded.

The silence by the Australian Media in respect to verified analysis from reputable sources questioning the veracity of the White House (and the Turnbull Governments) assertions in respect to the sarin gas incident at Khan Sheikhoun, surely indicates that our media in Australia is already censored. The question is by whom? Perhaps if John Menadue continues to publish the insightful blogs like those of James O’Neil we might find out!

Thanks James. I don’t know whether Professor Postol includes millennialists in the “sociopathic and psychopathic element in the US that sees such a war as desirable and winnable”, but I found the U.S. military document located at http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA485511 fascinating, and very disturbing. The issue of the influence of millennialists was discussed at the time of the George W. Bush administration, but I haven’t seen it play a part in the current discussion about White House policy.

The mainstream media line that only 23 missiles hit is from the Russian defence ministry. The pentagon line is that 58 of the 59 missiles hit, which are clearly market out from independent satellite imagery.

I wish you would show the same high level of skepticism you show to US sources and western media to other information sources. Your ability to unquestionably believe things you agree with is blinding you.

Have been following James another little staged theme to stir the holders of the pitchforks. The media following the same mantra they always follow and seem to not notice the UN Charter, at least for articles (1, 2, 33, 39) ban the kind of aggression the USA took against Syria.
Trump has suddenly now become more rational with this staged event basically to feed the domestic market and boost his appeal. He never intended to hit them hard the entire attack was just for show.
The S-300 and 400 systems are automatic and would have to be turned off during the attack by the Americans. The Russians could still play with their electronic radar toys which shows the caution they are taking!
America does not want an investigation in the incident indeed any incident unless it is in their favour, Every country uses false flags to justify aggression but the United States have made an art form out of the activity!

You can see the targets were
15 Aircraft Shelters
7 Workshops
10 Ammunition stores
5 Air defence
7 Fuel stores

“Ten ammunition storages got hit. Seven fuel reservoirs of the AFB got hit at two sites with eight hits total. Two locations remain untouched. One SA6 Battery utterly destroyed along with its radars and control systems. In total, five SA6 Battery elements hit.”

“The results show that the target hits were accurate and that the Tomahawks have been used effectively against quality targets. Although 58 missiles hit the base, it seems that the overall damage to the base is limited because the warhead of the Tomahawk is not considered large and weighs about 450 kg.”

The runways were not hit are are still functional, but the airbase is crippled from the destroyed fuel, ammunition and maintenance infrastructure.

@James
Your first sentence: “On 4 April 2017 an incident occurred in the Syrian town of Khan Sheikhoun, as a result of which a number of civilians, including children, died. ”
There is actually ZERO confirmed evidence of this.
Yes, there is some online video from the notorious Hollywood-acclaimed and M15 funded White Helmets, but the video (which can reasonable be dismissed as staged) is not evidence of any confirmed “incident” at Khan Sheikhourn.

The Russian military spokesman Igor Konoshenkov has stated that since April 4 the has been no call for medications or assistance to the site. Which, if 100 people died of a sarin attack – would be expected.

How come no one anywhere on the alleged location has experienced any effects?

MOSCOW, April 18. /TASS/. Neither citizens of Khan Shaykhun, in Syria’s Idlib Governorate, nor experts of the White Helmets group have complained about poisoning over the past two weeks since reports about the alleged chemical attacks, official spokesman for Russia’s Defense Ministry said on Tuesday.
“The city lives its own life. There haven’t been any requests for assistance by special medications, antidotes and deactivation for citizens and also pseudo-rescuers,” Igor Konashenkov said. “The only ‘evidence’ of using chemical weapons is these two videos of the White Helmets,” the general said.

Konashenkov noted that neither participant of the rescue operation nor the alleged victim appeared on the American or European TV channels later.
So far, no contamination zone was defined from where local citizens should have been evacuated, he said.
“At the same time, every day the number of unbiased experts grows, especially in Western countries, who ask these evident questions.
These specialists, who have the knowledge and experience, cannot explain how these representatives of the White Helmets could work in the contamination zone for so long remaining alive without any gas masks and special uniform,” Konashenkov noted.
“These doubts of professionals reduce to zero numerous accusations of Western politicians and diplomats, who immediately found the one to blame without simply checking the data of social networks and carrying out an impartial investigation,” he said.
It is clear that those behind these accusations are not planning to conduct a thorough investigation into the incident, and this reminds of the situation in Iraq and Libya, Konashenkov said.